[Cite as State v. Greathouse, 2012-Ohio-2414.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24935 

vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 05CR852 

TERRANCE L. GREATHOUSE : (Criminal Appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 . . . . . . . . . 

 O P I N I O N

 Rendered on the 1st day of June, 2012. 

 . . . . . . . . . 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Pros. Attorney; Michele D. Phipps, Asst. Pros. Attorney, Atty. 

Reg. No. 0069829, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Terrance L. Greathouse, #516-781, R.C.I., P.O. Box 7010, Chillicothe, OH 45601 

Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se 

 . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} In a prior appeal, State v. Greathouse, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21536, 

2007-Ohio-2136, we affirmed Defendant-Appellant’s convictions for multiple felony 

offenses, but we reversed the sentences the trial court imposed on the authority of State v. 

Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E. 2d 470. We remanded the case for 
2

resentencing in accordance with Foster. Id., ¶ 91. 

{¶ 2} The record of the present appeal does not reflect the result of the resentencing 

we ordered. However, it is apparent that a resentencing occurred because, on October 28, 

2011, Defendant filed a motion requesting another resentencing. Defendant argued that 

several of his offenses are allied offenses of similar import and that his sentences for those 

offenses must be merged pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. 

{¶ 3} On November 17, 2011, the trial court overruled Defendant’s motion. The 

court held that his merger claim is barred by res judicata because it was decided and rejected 

by this court in Defendant’s prior direct appeal from his conviction. Defendant filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

{¶ 4} “THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING WHEN HIS 

SENTENCE IS THE PRODUCT OF ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.” 

{¶ 5} Defendant doesn’t dispute the trial court’s finding that a claim of allied 

offenses was raised and decided in his prior direct appeal. Rather, Defendant argues that 

because the issue was resolved in that appeal on the authority of the test in State v. Rance, 85 

Ohio St.3d 632, 710 N.E.2d 699 (1999), which was more recently overruled by State v. 

Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, Defendant is entitled to 

resentencing applying the test now prescribed by Johnson. 

{¶ 6} We agree that Defendant’s allied offenses claim is barred by res judicata 

because it was raised and decided in his prior appeal. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 

N.E.2d 104 (1967). The fact that the law governing that claim was subsequently changed by 
3

Johnson offers no basis for a different result. A new judicial ruling may be applied only to 

cases that are pending on the announcement date, and the new judicial ruling may not be 

applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final, that is, where the accused has 

exhausted all of his appellate remedies. Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328, 2004-Ohio-6592, 

819 N.E. 2d 687. Defendant exhausted his appellate remedies with respect to his convictions 

in his prior direct appeal, which was decided in 2007. Johnson was decided in 2010. 

Defendant is not entitled to the benefit of any new case law after the disposition of his direct 

appeal. State v. Hill, 5th Dist. Muskinghum No. CT11-0020, 2011-Ohio-3644. 

{¶ 7} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be 

affirmed. 

DONOVAN, J., And HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Michelle D. Phipps, Esq. 

Terrence L. Greathouse` 

Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman